Do you want us all to be doomed? Why do you hate us so much? And there's the counterargument in a nutshell...which I was trotting out for comedic effect only.
I've rarely seen a more cogent and witty analysis. What an apt refutation! This is clearly the pinnacle of your distinguished career as an internet commentator.
I'd say that Dr. Lindzen should put more effort into demonstrating the validity of his claims in the scientific literature, but frankly he's just not that good at it.
We've been trying for about 120 years to disprove the idea that CO2 can cause changes in climate, or longer if you want to start counting from Tyndall. And it was indeed considered to be proven false through much of the 20th Century. But the things that we thought would prevent this from happening turned out to be untrue, and the consensus gradually changed over the period 1950-1980 or so.
At this point speculating about some phenomenon that would make AGW not a problem is like speculating about the properties of the luminiferous ether: it would have to be both very large to cancel out the H2O feedbacks, and very small to have not been noticed to date, and not only would this have to be compatible with all prior temperature records, but it must also account for observations of extraterrestrial atmospheres. Yes, our radiative transfer equations explain temperature profiles in the atmosphere of Venus and the atmosphere of the Sun, so if we're missing something big about atmospheric physics you need to say why we haven't seen it on Earth and elsewhere, because otherwise the numbers all add up.
Lindzen actually deserves recognition as having put forth the most plausible alternative theory concerning AGW. Unfortunately, to date he has not been able to provide convincing evidence for his theories. His belief that there is some negative feedback is far closer to believing in magic at this point, at least until someone figures out more than one way to transfer energy to space.
If that's your answer to Islam, you're a moron. There are plenty of Muslims who are not jihadists, and the overall battle between the Muslim East and the Christian West has not only been over for two centuries, but it was won so completely that history books rarely even mention it.
But since you ask, my answer continues to be that we should make war on the Saudis. Failing that we should treat them like any other state that promotes terrorism. Failing that we could maybe give them fewer hundred-billion-dollar weapons deals. And failing all that maybe we could stop apologizing for people who do treat with jihadists. Or hey, maybe consider drawing a moral line somewhere instead of just a political one.
The travel ban was for failed states / war zones / places where we have no embassy so we can't vet anybody
So what? The argument was not that Saudis should be included in the travel ban for the same reasons, the argument was that they should be targeted for spreading terrorism around the globe.
They're sitting around saying "man I sure am glad we have this Islamic government that punishes anyone who blasphemes Allah or draws pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)!"
You'd be surprised at how much support for democracy/republicanism there is within various Islamic populations. Islam in its political aspects does sort of have issues with democracy, but
And yes, the argument was "convert or die". If you believe God wants you to kill people who are less than perfectly faithful, to the point of being willing to die for that, I think that you should be assisted in that with the utmost celerity. If you are not a jihadist, go with God/Allah/Buddah/Odin/Whoever and have whatever repressive government you want. Feel free to disagree with that particular moral boundary, but don't argue against positions I don't hold.
Instead you need to give them the carrot to reform their own shit, which is basically what Trump yelled at them to do.
You have no idea what you're even saying. There is no favorable interpretation of Trump's actions. Wahhabism is evil like Nazism is evil. The House of Saud founded Wahhabism and continues to promote it as the default form of Islam. Defending the alliance between our peoples is defending jihadism. I hope that you're not blindly partisan to the point where you would do such a thing.
oh, right, and because I know you're not going to bother looking the term up: both Al Qaeda and ISIS are offshoots of Wahhabism. You were saying what good things about these people, again?
The point of confusion is that the US awards a "doctorate" for what should be a professional certification or bachelor's degree. A doctor is someone who holds a doctorate, and as a rule this is a research degree, denoting academic distinction. In any other field and many other countries, it would be considered unusual for a doctor to have a professional practice. That is to say, one can certainly hold a doctorate of mathematics or computer science and have a professional practice, but that's not the point of the Ph.D.
US medical practitioners have co-opted the word 'doctor', or tried their best to do so at any rate, and a century or so of use has legitimized it. However, it should be in no way surprising or negative that a person in medical research does not hold a license to practice medicine, and whether or not that person also has a doctorate of some sort is probably their own concern.
"Doctor" is the precedent here. Doctor's of geography, mathematics, art, even are all over the world. But you wouldn't expect them to be able to work in a hospital performing surgery without being appropriately qualified. You wouldn't expect them to be able to misrepresent their doctorate (e.g. by saying "it's okay, just take your top off and show me, I'm a doctor"). You also wouldn't expect them to be fined to oblivion for booking a restaurant table in the name of Dr Smith, either. Because that's what they are and referring to that title isn't compulsory or indicative of a specific qualification at that point.
Doctor comes from the latin "I teach", and the association of physicians with the term is both a modern trend and mostly limited to the US. A doctorate is not supposed to be a professional distinction but an academic one. The idea is that you have added to the sum total of human knowledge in some way, which take note is not what medical students actually do. In the UK and related countries the initial degree would be a Bachelor of Surgery and an M.D. would be a research degree.
Your overall point may be good, but you picked the worst possible example.
We should be bombing the Saudis for spreading Wahhabism. I mean, to be honest they kill a lot more of their fellow Muslims than they do Westerners, but any religion that teaches the killing of the insufficiently faithful is a religious duty for all its followers simply needs to be eradicated.
Watching various Administrations handle them with kid gloves has been galling, but Trump has been especially provocative. The travel ban was a foolish move under any circumstances, but to enact a ban and not only exempt the biggest state sponsor of terrorism but bend over backwards at every turn to reassure them of our continued loyalty. We need that like we need to pay people to teach our enemies to make war upon us. Oh, wait.
LSD used a single time can induce a psychotic break in some people.
I don't recall reading about any instance of this where the person did not already have some sort of aberrant mental condition. This study found that psychedelic use was not an independent risk factor for psychosis. I think that the other studies I've read had broadly similar conclusions.
I'm telling you right now that you're an idiot and you need to ***shut the fuck up*** before some naive fool takes your idiotic opinion as some sort of quality info.
Let's not be unscientific and bigoted, you're challenged enough as is.
Because it may affect the handful of delusional, who consider themselves one sex despite having the sex-organs of the other. Why should these people's preference be more important, than that of the rest of us?
Being transgender is not a delusion. It is actually a fairly normal part of human biology and gender expression. The article goes into a great deal of detail (with citations) about why the DSM classification is unhelpful, and about the origin and development of gender identity from a neurological perspective. Generally, gender identity is a product of hormonal influences on the brain, but the sex organs necessarily form before that happens, and the brain doesn't always set itself to the right gender when the hormones kick in.
This should be considered a normal part of human development. In denying fundamental biology, you create a systemic violence against the differently gendered. You deny transgender persons a right to their own identity, and teach them to be ashamed of themselves for being who they are. This results in mass suicide. But you still feel the need to defend yourself against these people.
What is it about trying to argue with biology and failing that makes the conservatives so eager to try it again? With the same arguments, even? If being transgender is a preference, maybe mi's thing is that they just haven't stumbled upon a skirt they really like. They could be one Prada bag away from a fabulous new lifestyle:)
I'd post as AC too if I were posting that kind of horseshit.
OpenRC did receive its due consideration and at least had more support than sysvinit. Of the sysvinit replacements, it's the most similar to systemd, but it has lagged a bit in providing features. Generally it was considered to be both too far away from sysvinit and not far enough.
No, SystemD won because a handful of people - even in the Debian community - that controlled a few core packages decided they were going to make it a hard dependency and ignored anyone else in the community wanting the ability to choose (per Debian's official policy) and Debian refused to enforce their policy with respect to SystemD. Thus Devuan was born.
You do not get to rewrite history. Debian had a public debate about this issue, and the associated wiki and mailing list archives are still online. In point of fact there were several discussions both before and after the Technical Committee's decision. Devuan was born after some morons who did not understand the technical issues at stake failed to convince the project leaders to overrule that decision. Dependencies were an issue raised during the discussion, but the issue was in no sense decided by upstream package maintainers.
And no, I didn't ignore SystemD until "too late". I knew of a number of the things that were going on simultaneously and from a developer's point of view was prepping to support all of them for some of the functionality I was developing. Of all, SystemD sucks the most.
No need to lie, the processes were all public. Your side lost on technical merit, and you've never even bothered to familiarize yourself with the arguments. The simple truth is that not only were there good reasons to replace sysvinit, but every other commercial Unix and OpenRC and Upstart replaced sysvinit for the same good reasons. Fundamentally, scripts are a bad way to manage system processes, which is why there have been twenty years of effort trying to introduce kernel-level process management in Linux. Systemd is the result of a long development effort that you ignored from inception until after it was the dominant technology, and now instead of learning about this new technology you're walling yourself off from it. Good. Stay that way. Hopefully devuan can be the shibboleth that identifies ossified intellects and those who reject change on principle.
I'm a self-taught programmer, or at least working towards being one. I think that it's probably descriptive if I say that I need to reread GoF, and I need to make a serious attempt on Knuth at some point. To my mind, programming education is insane. If you want to be a good programmer, you have to make that an explicit goal, and probably prioritize that above getting real work done unless you're very lucky. Most people seem to enjoy making things other than programming their hobby, and perhaps even most programmers. It's not necessarily everyone's idea of a fun Sunday to teach oneself about trie structures or binary searches, and it's easy to not use those things in one's day-to-day coding. Conversely, most employers are unwilling or uninterested in teaching people new programming skills, and while universities tend to provide a decent set of fundamentals with which to build a knowledge of programming, having plunked one's buns in a seat for four years says nothing about one's ability to learn programming independently.
Generally, I tend to take the long view, that if it takes 10,000 hours of actively trying to be better at something and a good helping of native talent to get there, then probably most people are never going to do so, and it's best to learn to live with that. However, to the degree to which there is an issue with programmers not knowing their trade, I think I would have to put the first blame for that on the industry rather than the individual.
I think you're close, but missing a few things. Firstly that UBI would make it somewhat more easy for people to destroy themselves, so there might be fewer people in those kind of dire straights. However, it will also suddenly become much more profitable to provide housing for people with medical or social issues preventing them from working. The homeless person suddenly represents an income stream to be captured: we can probably see an expansion in facilities designed to provide people with a minimal amount of vital services, in order to capture UBI plus whatever the family can afford in the way of special treatment. At which point we'll perhaps need some sort of quality-of-life rules about such facilities.
Right now we as a society have decided that people are worth the value of their labor, and nothing more. This has historically been a good proxy for the value of an individual, but the value of human labor has been on a downward trend lately, and it has this unfortunate flaw of considering anyone not working to be valueless. We say to both the student and the drug addict that it's unimportant whether or not they drop dead in the streets, except in the sense of having to do something about the corpse. Generally, this is inefficient. UBI recognizes that simply participating in the economy, simply being a revenue stream to be captured, is actually of some inherent value.
There is an equal danger of viewing people as only a potential revenue stream, but at the moment we're simply wrong about how we as a society assign value to ourselves. Some people who don't work really are of no value or of negative value to society, but assuming that this is true of everyone that doesn't work is becoming painfully stupid in a very broad economic sense.
I've had this discussion with MrKaos. Their use case and philosophies tend to be unique. Yes, init and inittab were designed to do some things that sysvinit and systemd reimplemented, but no, that's not necessarily a good reason to prefer using those tools. MrKaos should refrain from generalizing about systemd based on their own experiences and use cases.
The reason to consider or at the very least pursue research concerning the no-feedback lowerbound is because of observation./quote. Nope. The lower bound is due to the laws of thermodynamics. As I said, that you don't understand why there is one means you don't understand the subject well enough to speak about it.
Anything less than the no-feedback forcing is unphysical. The lower bound is fixed at 3.7 w/m^2 per doubling, generally held to be about 1 degree C. AR5 had the likely arange at 1.5-4.5k, with a fairly long-tailed distribution. Generally given the H2O feedback low estimates are less plausible.
The exact value of TCR/ECS have yet to be determined, because that value relies on computer modeling. The lower bound for no-feedback forcing is given by basic physical laws of radiative transfer.
Wikipedia may or may not be pushing a narrative. I'm not aware of what the MSM is doing. I don't tend to assign much faith in things unless they have been fairly long established in the scientific literature. Unfortunately AGW is one of those things, and there is no reason to believe that climate sensitivity is anywhere near the lower bound.
(and if your response to that is, "How do we know there's a lower bound?" you don't know enough physics to have this conversation)
In order to dispute the AGW consensus you basically have to be a liar. Here is your lie:
This means, the more we know, the more we are realising that climate sensitivity to a double of CO2 gets lower and lower and lower. Currently probably somewhere between 0.5C to 1.1C for every doubling of CO2.
Try 4-6 degrees C. See wikipedia or the IPCC for more info.
Why would CO2 not be relevant to this topic? Unless you're one of those "CO2 doesn't trap heat" liars. I mean, I'm not particular about what brand of liar you are, really, just so it's out there.
It's been ten years and you're still harping on about Al Gore? Ten years and that's all you know about climate science? Ten years of that being the only thing you have to say about the subject? Did your brain ossify at an early age or something?
Christ almighty man, get some different lies at least.
Human CO2 output is equivalent to one or more Yellowstone-sized supervolcano eruptions per year. Source is Gerlach, '08 if memory serves. He has written various papers and articles comparing human activity with historical volcanism.
Now, I'm sure I don't know about the resolution of various proxies and datasets, and unless you have some published research on the matter your opinion is worthless too. However, unless you can point me out any past period in Earth's history where multiple supervolcanos were going off on an annual basis, I'm afraid the idea that this CO2 spike is happening at an unprecedented rate has to go unchallenged.
Frankly I don't know where you get off lying about this subject.
What I do see is that most people are unable to learn to code well, regardless of education effort and experience. These will never get decent or secure jobs with a primary qualification of "coder".
I recall a conversation last year with a project manager at a major US bank. "So you're managing this software team, yeah? What languages are they using?" "Oh, I have no idea!" *laughs off the question*
Java, but you probably guessed that. But really it's okay to have people of all skill levels working in the industry, and at its worst this is not a bad industry to be in.
I've spent a lot of time lately around people going to coding schools, and mentoring a few of them. I wouldn't disagree that the majority of them were destined for no great success. I feel like even after months of code reviews and evaluation, I haven't yet been able to detect whether any of them had any real aptitude for programming in the greater sense of that term, as opposed to merely being able to churn out web apps of various descriptions. Unfortunately "just" being able to churn out a web app is a very marketable skill -- I don't know what your basis for disagreement on that subject might be. But generally I think that it takes a long time and knowing several languages well before you really get a handle on whether you're going to get a handle on algorithms and data structures.
Personally, I feel like I am perhaps halfway to being a programmer. I'm a web developer, and you may read into that what you will, but doing various programming challenges around the web is teaching me a need for both higher- and lower-level languages. I feel like I need to reread GoF and make another attempt at Knuth. Perhaps we should make a list of qualifications to be a "real" programmer?
* One or more functional programming languages * One or more systems programming languages * At least two scripting languages, one of them being Bash * Javascript * Two or more RDBMSs * At least one NoSQL datastore * Comprehensive knowledge of algorithms * Comprehensive knowledge of design patterns * Concurrent/multithreaded programming * Networking * Low-level programming and Assembly programming * Circuit design * HPC, realtime, video game, or other high-performance programming * Operating System design * Compiler, parser, lexer, and interpreter design
And to this we may add a host of other important details like source control, unit testing, build tools, IDEs, vim, documentation, and some knowledge of computing history, a bit of information theory, security in both attack and defense and probably some statistics. Feel free to add to the list; I'm sure I've forgotten some essentials. But that to me seems like a ten-year course of study at best, and I am beginning to suspect that it represents a greater scope of knowledge than most people ever achieve -- or typically wish to, probably. I'm certainly not champing at the bit to write some device drivers, that's for sure.
Especially given the ever-changing nature of the programming world, I really feel like it's more appropriate to view programming as a journey (or even as an endurance test). Most people are going to quit at some point, some may never get anywhere, and they may or may not make any money as they go along. I don't necessarily disagree with your pessimism about the intellectual prospects of the average code monkey, but I feel like it's a very long road to even begin to tell if someone is going to be a decent programmer, and I respect that people get different starts and progress at different rates and in different ways.
(as an aside, watching different people learn coding has been really interesting so far, and I've been continually surprised at the rate at which people pick things up)
All that said, I think that your pessimism might not extend quite far enough. I've mostly kept my nose out of the corporate world, so I tend to assume you will have a better grasp on this matter, but in the course o
I may not have expressed my point well. I agree that to those familiar with functional programming concepts, map and reduce are at least as legible as explicit loops. However, I do think that due to their nature as higher-level abstractions that fluency in these concepts requires a greater effort. Of course, it could be simply the case that most people are introduced to programming in imperative programming languages. To what degree does the relative unpopularity of functional programming languages represent a less natural model of human cognition? Or is that also a product of e.g. teaching kids arithmetic instead of arithmetic series?
Do you know, I feel like that last example is a pretty valid comparison. In order to understand arithmetic you need nothing more than bottlecaps or a number line. Arithmetic series take an understanding of functions, variables, and infinity, as well as the fundamentals of arithmetic. Similarly, while you can write a for loop in every language (even Malbolge, theoretically), I want to see the person who can write map/reduce in Brainfuck without transpiling. I think in practice we can say that some sort of named or anonymous function is required in addition to looping and arithmetical operators, and further that if the language in question doesn't support functions as first-class objects then you're going to have a harder time of things. And while one doesn't technically have to have a solid understanding of higher-order functions, it certainly helps.
On the other other hand, the notion of functional programming being just as easily taught as imperative programming is an attractive one, and I'd love to see the subject more widely taught. I'm of two minds. What do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you want us all to be doomed? Why do you hate us so much? And there's the counterargument in a nutshell...which I was trotting out for comedic effect only.
I've rarely seen a more cogent and witty analysis. What an apt refutation! This is clearly the pinnacle of your distinguished career as an internet commentator.
I'd say that Dr. Lindzen should put more effort into demonstrating the validity of his claims in the scientific literature, but frankly he's just not that good at it.
We've been trying for about 120 years to disprove the idea that CO2 can cause changes in climate, or longer if you want to start counting from Tyndall. And it was indeed considered to be proven false through much of the 20th Century. But the things that we thought would prevent this from happening turned out to be untrue, and the consensus gradually changed over the period 1950-1980 or so.
At this point speculating about some phenomenon that would make AGW not a problem is like speculating about the properties of the luminiferous ether: it would have to be both very large to cancel out the H2O feedbacks, and very small to have not been noticed to date, and not only would this have to be compatible with all prior temperature records, but it must also account for observations of extraterrestrial atmospheres. Yes, our radiative transfer equations explain temperature profiles in the atmosphere of Venus and the atmosphere of the Sun, so if we're missing something big about atmospheric physics you need to say why we haven't seen it on Earth and elsewhere, because otherwise the numbers all add up.
Lindzen actually deserves recognition as having put forth the most plausible alternative theory concerning AGW. Unfortunately, to date he has not been able to provide convincing evidence for his theories. His belief that there is some negative feedback is far closer to believing in magic at this point, at least until someone figures out more than one way to transfer energy to space.
If that's your answer to Islam, you're a moron. There are plenty of Muslims who are not jihadists, and the overall battle between the Muslim East and the Christian West has not only been over for two centuries, but it was won so completely that history books rarely even mention it.
But since you ask, my answer continues to be that we should make war on the Saudis. Failing that we should treat them like any other state that promotes terrorism. Failing that we could maybe give them fewer hundred-billion-dollar weapons deals. And failing all that maybe we could stop apologizing for people who do treat with jihadists. Or hey, maybe consider drawing a moral line somewhere instead of just a political one.
For CO2 to be problem the models pull a CO2/H2O vapor positive feedback coefficient from a dark place.
It's very true. Water, carbon dioxide, and heat are all very difficult to obtain and study.
The travel ban was for failed states / war zones / places where we have no embassy so we can't vet anybody
So what? The argument was not that Saudis should be included in the travel ban for the same reasons, the argument was that they should be targeted for spreading terrorism around the globe.
They're sitting around saying "man I sure am glad we have this Islamic government that punishes anyone who blasphemes Allah or draws pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)!"
You'd be surprised at how much support for democracy/republicanism there is within various Islamic populations. Islam in its political aspects does sort of have issues with democracy, but
And yes, the argument was "convert or die". If you believe God wants you to kill people who are less than perfectly faithful, to the point of being willing to die for that, I think that you should be assisted in that with the utmost celerity. If you are not a jihadist, go with God/Allah/Buddah/Odin/Whoever and have whatever repressive government you want. Feel free to disagree with that particular moral boundary, but don't argue against positions I don't hold.
Instead you need to give them the carrot to reform their own shit, which is basically what Trump yelled at them to do.
You have no idea what you're even saying. There is no favorable interpretation of Trump's actions. Wahhabism is evil like Nazism is evil. The House of Saud founded Wahhabism and continues to promote it as the default form of Islam. Defending the alliance between our peoples is defending jihadism. I hope that you're not blindly partisan to the point where you would do such a thing.
oh, right, and because I know you're not going to bother looking the term up: both Al Qaeda and ISIS are offshoots of Wahhabism. You were saying what good things about these people, again?
The point of confusion is that the US awards a "doctorate" for what should be a professional certification or bachelor's degree. A doctor is someone who holds a doctorate, and as a rule this is a research degree, denoting academic distinction. In any other field and many other countries, it would be considered unusual for a doctor to have a professional practice. That is to say, one can certainly hold a doctorate of mathematics or computer science and have a professional practice, but that's not the point of the Ph.D.
US medical practitioners have co-opted the word 'doctor', or tried their best to do so at any rate, and a century or so of use has legitimized it. However, it should be in no way surprising or negative that a person in medical research does not hold a license to practice medicine, and whether or not that person also has a doctorate of some sort is probably their own concern.
Stop.
"Doctor" is the precedent here. Doctor's of geography, mathematics, art, even are all over the world. But you wouldn't expect them to be able to work in a hospital performing surgery without being appropriately qualified. You wouldn't expect them to be able to misrepresent their doctorate (e.g. by saying "it's okay, just take your top off and show me, I'm a doctor"). You also wouldn't expect them to be fined to oblivion for booking a restaurant table in the name of Dr Smith, either. Because that's what they are and referring to that title isn't compulsory or indicative of a specific qualification at that point.
Doctor comes from the latin "I teach", and the association of physicians with the term is both a modern trend and mostly limited to the US. A doctorate is not supposed to be a professional distinction but an academic one. The idea is that you have added to the sum total of human knowledge in some way, which take note is not what medical students actually do. In the UK and related countries the initial degree would be a Bachelor of Surgery and an M.D. would be a research degree.
Your overall point may be good, but you picked the worst possible example.
We should be bombing the Saudis for spreading Wahhabism. I mean, to be honest they kill a lot more of their fellow Muslims than they do Westerners, but any religion that teaches the killing of the insufficiently faithful is a religious duty for all its followers simply needs to be eradicated.
Watching various Administrations handle them with kid gloves has been galling, but Trump has been especially provocative. The travel ban was a foolish move under any circumstances, but to enact a ban and not only exempt the biggest state sponsor of terrorism but bend over backwards at every turn to reassure them of our continued loyalty. We need that like we need to pay people to teach our enemies to make war upon us. Oh, wait.
LSD used a single time can induce a psychotic break in some people.
I don't recall reading about any instance of this where the person did not already have some sort of aberrant mental condition. This study found that psychedelic use was not an independent risk factor for psychosis. I think that the other studies I've read had broadly similar conclusions.
I'm telling you right now that you're an idiot and you need to ***shut the fuck up*** before some naive fool takes your idiotic opinion as some sort of quality info.
You must feel embarrassed to have typed that.
Let's not be unscientific and bigoted, you're challenged enough as is.
Because it may affect the handful of delusional, who consider themselves one sex despite having the sex-organs of the other. Why should these people's preference be more important, than that of the rest of us?
Being transgender is not a delusion. It is actually a fairly normal part of human biology and gender expression. The article goes into a great deal of detail (with citations) about why the DSM classification is unhelpful, and about the origin and development of gender identity from a neurological perspective. Generally, gender identity is a product of hormonal influences on the brain, but the sex organs necessarily form before that happens, and the brain doesn't always set itself to the right gender when the hormones kick in.
This should be considered a normal part of human development. In denying fundamental biology, you create a systemic violence against the differently gendered. You deny transgender persons a right to their own identity, and teach them to be ashamed of themselves for being who they are. This results in mass suicide. But you still feel the need to defend yourself against these people.
What is it about trying to argue with biology and failing that makes the conservatives so eager to try it again? With the same arguments, even? If being transgender is a preference, maybe mi's thing is that they just haven't stumbled upon a skirt they really like. They could be one Prada bag away from a fabulous new lifestyle :)
I'd post as AC too if I were posting that kind of horseshit.
OpenRC did receive its due consideration and at least had more support than sysvinit. Of the sysvinit replacements, it's the most similar to systemd, but it has lagged a bit in providing features. Generally it was considered to be both too far away from sysvinit and not far enough.
No, SystemD won because a handful of people - even in the Debian community - that controlled a few core packages decided they were going to make it a hard dependency and ignored anyone else in the community wanting the ability to choose (per Debian's official policy) and Debian refused to enforce their policy with respect to SystemD. Thus Devuan was born.
You do not get to rewrite history. Debian had a public debate about this issue, and the associated wiki and mailing list archives are still online. In point of fact there were several discussions both before and after the Technical Committee's decision. Devuan was born after some morons who did not understand the technical issues at stake failed to convince the project leaders to overrule that decision. Dependencies were an issue raised during the discussion, but the issue was in no sense decided by upstream package maintainers.
And no, I didn't ignore SystemD until "too late". I knew of a number of the things that were going on simultaneously and from a developer's point of view was prepping to support all of them for some of the functionality I was developing. Of all, SystemD sucks the most.
cool story, bro.
systemd has only won the day by fiat.
No need to lie, the processes were all public. Your side lost on technical merit, and you've never even bothered to familiarize yourself with the arguments. The simple truth is that not only were there good reasons to replace sysvinit, but every other commercial Unix and OpenRC and Upstart replaced sysvinit for the same good reasons. Fundamentally, scripts are a bad way to manage system processes, which is why there have been twenty years of effort trying to introduce kernel-level process management in Linux. Systemd is the result of a long development effort that you ignored from inception until after it was the dominant technology, and now instead of learning about this new technology you're walling yourself off from it. Good. Stay that way. Hopefully devuan can be the shibboleth that identifies ossified intellects and those who reject change on principle.
Definitely heard of it, for sure. There's no particular reason to think it has much to do with programming performance.
I'm a self-taught programmer, or at least working towards being one. I think that it's probably descriptive if I say that I need to reread GoF, and I need to make a serious attempt on Knuth at some point. To my mind, programming education is insane. If you want to be a good programmer, you have to make that an explicit goal, and probably prioritize that above getting real work done unless you're very lucky. Most people seem to enjoy making things other than programming their hobby, and perhaps even most programmers. It's not necessarily everyone's idea of a fun Sunday to teach oneself about trie structures or binary searches, and it's easy to not use those things in one's day-to-day coding. Conversely, most employers are unwilling or uninterested in teaching people new programming skills, and while universities tend to provide a decent set of fundamentals with which to build a knowledge of programming, having plunked one's buns in a seat for four years says nothing about one's ability to learn programming independently.
Generally, I tend to take the long view, that if it takes 10,000 hours of actively trying to be better at something and a good helping of native talent to get there, then probably most people are never going to do so, and it's best to learn to live with that. However, to the degree to which there is an issue with programmers not knowing their trade, I think I would have to put the first blame for that on the industry rather than the individual.
I think you're close, but missing a few things. Firstly that UBI would make it somewhat more easy for people to destroy themselves, so there might be fewer people in those kind of dire straights. However, it will also suddenly become much more profitable to provide housing for people with medical or social issues preventing them from working. The homeless person suddenly represents an income stream to be captured: we can probably see an expansion in facilities designed to provide people with a minimal amount of vital services, in order to capture UBI plus whatever the family can afford in the way of special treatment. At which point we'll perhaps need some sort of quality-of-life rules about such facilities.
Right now we as a society have decided that people are worth the value of their labor, and nothing more. This has historically been a good proxy for the value of an individual, but the value of human labor has been on a downward trend lately, and it has this unfortunate flaw of considering anyone not working to be valueless. We say to both the student and the drug addict that it's unimportant whether or not they drop dead in the streets, except in the sense of having to do something about the corpse. Generally, this is inefficient. UBI recognizes that simply participating in the economy, simply being a revenue stream to be captured, is actually of some inherent value.
There is an equal danger of viewing people as only a potential revenue stream, but at the moment we're simply wrong about how we as a society assign value to ourselves. Some people who don't work really are of no value or of negative value to society, but assuming that this is true of everyone that doesn't work is becoming painfully stupid in a very broad economic sense.
I've had this discussion with MrKaos. Their use case and philosophies tend to be unique. Yes, init and inittab were designed to do some things that sysvinit and systemd reimplemented, but no, that's not necessarily a good reason to prefer using those tools. MrKaos should refrain from generalizing about systemd based on their own experiences and use cases.
There are a number of feedback effects involving the water cycle, whose contributions have been measured, not assumed.
based on an Assumed positive feedback effect that has not yet been identified
This is a lie.
The reason to consider or at the very least pursue research concerning the no-feedback lowerbound is because of observation./quote.
Nope. The lower bound is due to the laws of thermodynamics. As I said, that you don't understand why there is one means you don't understand the subject well enough to speak about it.
Anything less than the no-feedback forcing is unphysical. The lower bound is fixed at 3.7 w/m^2 per doubling, generally held to be about 1 degree C. AR5 had the likely arange at 1.5-4.5k, with a fairly long-tailed distribution. Generally given the H2O feedback low estimates are less plausible.
The exact value of TCR/ECS have yet to be determined, because that value relies on computer modeling. The lower bound for no-feedback forcing is given by basic physical laws of radiative transfer.
Wikipedia may or may not be pushing a narrative. I'm not aware of what the MSM is doing. I don't tend to assign much faith in things unless they have been fairly long established in the scientific literature. Unfortunately AGW is one of those things, and there is no reason to believe that climate sensitivity is anywhere near the lower bound.
(and if your response to that is, "How do we know there's a lower bound?" you don't know enough physics to have this conversation)
In order to dispute the AGW consensus you basically have to be a liar. Here is your lie:
This means, the more we know, the more we are realising that climate sensitivity to a double of CO2 gets lower and lower and lower. Currently probably somewhere between 0.5C to 1.1C for every doubling of CO2.
Try 4-6 degrees C. See wikipedia or the IPCC for more info.
Why would CO2 not be relevant to this topic? Unless you're one of those "CO2 doesn't trap heat" liars. I mean, I'm not particular about what brand of liar you are, really, just so it's out there.
It's been ten years and you're still harping on about Al Gore? Ten years and that's all you know about climate science? Ten years of that being the only thing you have to say about the subject? Did your brain ossify at an early age or something?
Christ almighty man, get some different lies at least.
Human CO2 output is equivalent to one or more Yellowstone-sized supervolcano eruptions per year. Source is Gerlach, '08 if memory serves. He has written various papers and articles comparing human activity with historical volcanism.
Now, I'm sure I don't know about the resolution of various proxies and datasets, and unless you have some published research on the matter your opinion is worthless too. However, unless you can point me out any past period in Earth's history where multiple supervolcanos were going off on an annual basis, I'm afraid the idea that this CO2 spike is happening at an unprecedented rate has to go unchallenged.
Frankly I don't know where you get off lying about this subject.
What I do see is that most people are unable to learn to code well, regardless of education effort and experience. These will never get decent or secure jobs with a primary qualification of "coder".
I recall a conversation last year with a project manager at a major US bank.
"So you're managing this software team, yeah? What languages are they using?"
"Oh, I have no idea!" *laughs off the question*
Java, but you probably guessed that. But really it's okay to have people of all skill levels working in the industry, and at its worst this is not a bad industry to be in.
I've spent a lot of time lately around people going to coding schools, and mentoring a few of them. I wouldn't disagree that the majority of them were destined for no great success. I feel like even after months of code reviews and evaluation, I haven't yet been able to detect whether any of them had any real aptitude for programming in the greater sense of that term, as opposed to merely being able to churn out web apps of various descriptions. Unfortunately "just" being able to churn out a web app is a very marketable skill -- I don't know what your basis for disagreement on that subject might be. But generally I think that it takes a long time and knowing several languages well before you really get a handle on whether you're going to get a handle on algorithms and data structures.
Personally, I feel like I am perhaps halfway to being a programmer. I'm a web developer, and you may read into that what you will, but doing various programming challenges around the web is teaching me a need for both higher- and lower-level languages. I feel like I need to reread GoF and make another attempt at Knuth. Perhaps we should make a list of qualifications to be a "real" programmer?
* One or more functional programming languages
* One or more systems programming languages
* At least two scripting languages, one of them being Bash
* Javascript
* Two or more RDBMSs
* At least one NoSQL datastore
* Comprehensive knowledge of algorithms
* Comprehensive knowledge of design patterns
* Concurrent/multithreaded programming
* Networking
* Low-level programming and Assembly programming
* Circuit design
* HPC, realtime, video game, or other high-performance programming
* Operating System design
* Compiler, parser, lexer, and interpreter design
And to this we may add a host of other important details like source control, unit testing, build tools, IDEs, vim, documentation, and some knowledge of computing history, a bit of information theory, security in both attack and defense and probably some statistics. Feel free to add to the list; I'm sure I've forgotten some essentials. But that to me seems like a ten-year course of study at best, and I am beginning to suspect that it represents a greater scope of knowledge than most people ever achieve -- or typically wish to, probably. I'm certainly not champing at the bit to write some device drivers, that's for sure.
Especially given the ever-changing nature of the programming world, I really feel like it's more appropriate to view programming as a journey (or even as an endurance test). Most people are going to quit at some point, some may never get anywhere, and they may or may not make any money as they go along. I don't necessarily disagree with your pessimism about the intellectual prospects of the average code monkey, but I feel like it's a very long road to even begin to tell if someone is going to be a decent programmer, and I respect that people get different starts and progress at different rates and in different ways.
(as an aside, watching different people learn coding has been really interesting so far, and I've been continually surprised at the rate at which people pick things up)
All that said, I think that your pessimism might not extend quite far enough. I've mostly kept my nose out of the corporate world, so I tend to assume you will have a better grasp on this matter, but in the course o
I may not have expressed my point well. I agree that to those familiar with functional programming concepts, map and reduce are at least as legible as explicit loops. However, I do think that due to their nature as higher-level abstractions that fluency in these concepts requires a greater effort. Of course, it could be simply the case that most people are introduced to programming in imperative programming languages. To what degree does the relative unpopularity of functional programming languages represent a less natural model of human cognition? Or is that also a product of e.g. teaching kids arithmetic instead of arithmetic series?
Do you know, I feel like that last example is a pretty valid comparison. In order to understand arithmetic you need nothing more than bottlecaps or a number line. Arithmetic series take an understanding of functions, variables, and infinity, as well as the fundamentals of arithmetic. Similarly, while you can write a for loop in every language (even Malbolge, theoretically), I want to see the person who can write map/reduce in Brainfuck without transpiling. I think in practice we can say that some sort of named or anonymous function is required in addition to looping and arithmetical operators, and further that if the language in question doesn't support functions as first-class objects then you're going to have a harder time of things. And while one doesn't technically have to have a solid understanding of higher-order functions, it certainly helps.
On the other other hand, the notion of functional programming being just as easily taught as imperative programming is an attractive one, and I'd love to see the subject more widely taught. I'm of two minds. What do you think?